Good point.
I missed that.
I would guess that CO is easier to measure than CO2 and that is the reason we don't have these types of maps showing CO2?
In addition fires could have different affect on where CO goes as compared to CO produced by cars
I read something somewhere that volcanos which was emitting less than 1000 tons of CO2 were difficult to measure, yet at same time [it appeared to me] that we were able to measure accurately from space. That didn't make much sense to me- I didn't investigate why.
I did some searching:
"Maps of carbon dioxide, CO2, are coming soon. CO2 is generated by burning fossil fuels in cars, trucks, ships and factories. It disperses more quickly into the atmosphere and is more homogenous than CO when imaged from space. AIRS will be the first instrument to measure CO2 concentrations from space. These maps will be available later this year and are expected to identify regional variations such as increased CO2 in the northern hemisphere, and the seasonal variation as the global plant life changes its consumption of CO2. AIRS will also be able to measure the movement and increase in CO2 from year to year, providing better estimates of the distribution and time evolution of this critical greenhouse gas. "
http://www-airs.jpl.nasa.gov/features/climate_change/greenhouse2.html
I couldn't find date on this. I guess I'll check more into AIRS. Anyways it appears we are going to get CO2 global maps. I wonder how much resolution they will have.
Space/Science » in reply to Carbon monoxide and dioxide aren't the same. Check your NASA link.
re: Carbon monoxide and dioxide aren't the same. Check your NASA link.
The whole thread (54 posts)
- Anthropogenic CO2.
- Human flatulence.
- More propaganda from those biased eco-whackos at NASA, and Columbia University, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and....
- DO you think people would get excited if you showed them THIS graph?
- What I really don't understand
- R.L.s original post.
- re: Anthropogenic CO2.
- Thank You
- re: Anthropogenic CO2.
- There is nothing dishonest about using that graph
- What makes that graph intellectually dishonest? (n/t)
- Whats the point, its not like people like Scott want the facts
